Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Charlie: “and the IDF doesn’t?”
Correct. Limud HaTorah affects everyone.
The IDF is, at best, a tool and, if it were Hashem’s will to replace it with something else, then He could also ensure that everyone would be just fine without it.
It was purely political, not ch”v an endorsement of Zionism.
WIY:
Nevuah about galus Yishmael does not mean that Arabs always behaved this way towards Jews. The simple reality is that they did not.
Their hate may have always existed to some extent, but that hate and its manifestations was never anywhere close to what it is today, and that hatred is due solely to Zionism.
writersoul:
chibas haAretz (by the way, who knows which of the 613 mitzvos that is; which passuk is it derived from?) is not an exclusively Zionist trait and, assuming it is a mitzva to love the land, is something that is wholly irrelevant to Zionism except that Zionists use it as a tool to fool people to make their idolatry kosher. B”H, at least some people see through that ruse.
Zionism is very much “the government part”. Read the shiurim of Rabbi Herschel Schachter where he speaks specifically of the government, not (just) the land, in religious terms.
This thread is about saying Hallel, which is a religious prayer, on occasion of a Zionist holiday.
147:
“I am old enough to vividly remember the Chebron attack on August 24, 1929. This was before we were Zochim to have a Medinat Yisrael, so I simply will not buy this argument that Zionism has provoked Arab rage.”
If you do vividly remember 1929, then you also vividly remember the facts as described (and can listen to the tape for yourself), including Religious Zionists’ Shema Yisrael HaKosel Kosleinu and the other instances of hisgarus baUmos which so dramatically and tragically inflamed the Arabs to hate the Jews. Jews lived in Arab countries for centuries before Zionism and the Yemenites had their mesorah intact since bayis rishon – until the evil Zionists intentionally threw overboard their sefarim and kisvei yad and shmaded them, etc. after convincing them to come to their Zionist paradise. It was not always a bed of roses in Arab countries, but the intense and savage hatred they have now, with its manifestations in the tragic loss of so much Jewish blood, Hashem yishmor, is solely a result of Zionism and far, far worse than anything experienced in Arab countries.
Rabbi Soloveichik admitted that Zionism caused the Arabs to hate Jews, and this is anyways plain and simple for any observer to see.
ROB:
The so-called “Satmar shita” is actually the Torah’s shita. None of the Zionists (here or elsewhere) have yet to come up with anyone who could (i.e. as being on their level in Torah) and did argue on Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon Ish, the Chofetz Chaim, etc. It’s no contest.
As for Kefirah (speaking of Zionism….), who told you that our freedom is only as individuals and that global matters are pre-ordained by Hashem? At what point does Hashem decide and at what point do we decide? For example, an Arab homicide/suicide bomber savagely murdered some Jews after which Israel began an operation in Gaza. So was his act personal or global? What you posit makes no sense, except to justify your idol of Zionism since you can then claim that the State was “pre-ordained”, CH”V, when it so clearly was not the ratzon Hashem, as virtually every gadol warned and every objective observer can now see.
147:
Perhaps you should remove the wool of Zionism from over your eyes to see just how misguided both your remarks and their “umbrage” (not “humbrage”) are.
See Rav Elchanan Wasserman’s Ikvisa DiMishicha:
“Nationalism is idolatry…religious nationalism is avodah zarah [with religion]”
Read it. There’s plenty more.
He also mentions the Three Oaths which Zionists still somehow dismiss as “mere agadita” (wrong on both counts, incidentally) despite the savage terrorism the Arabs committed in Israel never before seen in history. R”L L”A.
WriterSoul:
Please see above: any nationalism (or anything else non-Torah) that you try to graft on to our holy Torah is idolatry. (Israel is anyways still Socialist, but that is not relevant.) The A”Z is the point, besides that the Zionists are destroying Torah as best as they can, CH”V.
Zionism is nothing like simple (American or other) Patriotism, and certainly not so when viewed from a “Religious-Zionist” perspective. If it were only patriotism, then we wouldn’t be having this absurd discussion of saying Hallel on a secular independence day just as, lihavdil, we don’t say Hallel on July 4th.
Avi: All the massive amounts of blood spilled, CH”V, for or because of this idol of Zionism (some of that in various cruel and barbaric ways) to create and maintain its State at any cost, is clearly no indication that Hashem wants the State any more than the Holocaust’s multi-year existence would show that He wanted the Holocaust, CH”V.
Not to mention the uncomfortable (to Zionists) facts of how it’s A”Z and a violation of the oaths and much more. That Hashem *allowed* the State is quite obvious.
But allowing and wanting (again, see WW-II) are two very different concepts.
Health:
Health often brings up Turkey. While the facts on the ground make the situation difficult to resolve al pi derech haTeva (since the Zionists made such an enormous mess), there are still certain things that could be done easily, if only the majority of Klal Yosrael were interested in doing the following and not blinded by Zionism.
One of those is: Just as Turkey is known as a secular state, and not representative of Muslims, so, too, Israel should be known as a secular State and not representative of, liHavdil, Jews.
There is nothing in science that can explain anything before their alleged big bang. In other words, matter cannot come from nothing. And time always marches on. The only possible explanation for “before time” and “before matter” is some sort of metaphysical force.
This could be Purim Torah, I guess.
In truth, though, it’s quite sad how misguided and against gedolim so many of our brethren are in their following of this avoda zara of Zionism.
It would make much more sense, objectively and halachicly speaking, for those who “celebrate” this day, to add selichos (for celebrating Israel’s Independence Day) to the b”h”b selichos rather than to say Hallel for that Avoda Zara’s Independence Day.
Then, if the Yetzer HaRa for A”Z (of Zionism) would continue to leave them alone, they could stop celebrating, CH”V, this tragic day which was really just one more stage in the spilling of so much blood of so many innocent Jews, R”L L”A Hashem Yishmor, in the Zionists’ tragic and doomed endless pursuit of this idolatry of their State at all costs and against the warnings and teachings of so many gedolim and so obviously (even more so in hindsight) kineged the ratzon of Hashem.
So the only question would seem to be which selichos to say first, those for Israel’s Independence day or those for, lihavdil, B”H”B. And since all of Klal Yisrael says the ones for B”H”B, it would seem that those are the ones recited first.
This part is not Purim Torah, and is just conjecture.
It is hard for modern man to understand the logic and reasoning of how so many people worshipped the baal and, even worse, the molech, casting their children into flames in service of this latter idol. The whole concept makes no sense, given the time, money, blood, sweat and tears it takes to raise a child. To then give that over to an idol who they knew quite well had no real power would seem to require delusion and hallucination.
Yet as Zionism becomes ever more ridiculous due to its many, many disasters since even before it founded its state at the price of enormous amounts of Jewish blood, while its adherents remain as faithful as ever (or even more faithful) to Zionism, it becomes more understandable how people could have worshipped the molech.
After all, people today, especially non-“cavemen” MO, who are surely more “modern” and sophisticated than those at the time of chazal, uproot their entire existence to live under the yoke of anti-Torah heretics in the holy land and also send their children to the front-lines in the IDF as a religious observance to fight for this idol of Zionism, when history has already amply demonstrated that this idol, too, is powerless. As a gadol presciently stated at its founding, the State of Israel is the Satan’s greatest triumph since the Egel HaZahav. In hindsight, to those not blinded by this idol, it is plain to see.
It’s amazing how the idolatry of Zionism is so blinding (to Zionists, but so plainly wrong to others) that when confronted with facts that clearly contradict the Zionists’ egel and the laaz put forth by “Religious Zionists”, all a Zionist seems capable to do is to be motzi laaz yet again and, almost as importantly, continue believing in his idol and not even attempt to answer the facts of the issues. This is simply because there are no answers for what these (secular) rishaim did and continue to do.
Again, let’s use Zionist sources, leaving out, liHavdil, the gedolei HaTorah’s clear denunciations of Zionism, including their own recalling of some of the various Zionist perfidies.
Elie Wiesel in his LA Times review of Tom Segev’s book 7th million:
“We know that Zionist leader Itzhak Gruenbaum, a future Minister of the Interior in David ben Gurion’s first cabinet, considered creating new settlements more urgent than saving Jews from being sent to Treblinka and Birkenau.”
And another gem, also from a Zionist source (AICE):
Aileh Elohecha, “Tziyonim”, asher Heviachem LaAvoda Zara shel Ha”Tziyonus”.
The Zionists’ outrageous and utterly foolish bragging that the Holocaust never would have happened had they been around then is such a bald-faced lie, only in part, because of their words and action/inaction during the Holocaust, as mentioned above and as can be found from Rabbi Weismandl’s Min HaMeitzar, for starters. They believed (and stated) that only through blood would they achieve Statehood; so Jewish blood was, in their mind, a perfectly reasonable price to pay. Yet, these reshaim claim, if there would have been an IDF then that would have changed…what, given that attitude above? How ridiculous!
Given the above, it is also very difficult to understand how anyone can think to ascribe any religious significance to Zionism and their holidays.
Whereas:
Anachnu Maaminim binei Maaminim viAin lanu al mi liHishaein ela al avinu sheBaShamayim.
Ask your LOR regarding A Capella music.
I agree with PBA, that it’s motzi laaz to say it has “real music” unless you know for sure that it is.
Perhaps as a way to be dan liKaf Zechus, it should be understood that music can be dramatically changed from initial recording to output. If you compare older concerts to the studio recordings of the same song, you can hear a remarkable difference between them, and that’s with instruments.
So just because it sounds “music-like” does not mean that they cheated and used real instruments. Given the above, I would think it’s certainly computer manipulation.
ROB, it seems your belief in the idolatry of Zionism has now caused you to also be motzi laaz on the rest of Klal Yisrael.
Those kinos are not skipped, as far as I know.
But the lies and treachery of Zionism regarding the Holocaust (which the Zionists have some chutzpah to commemorate given this involvement) is certainly well-hidden and glossed over (unless you research online).
I just want to support the OP in his question. I do not believe it is sinas chinam to want to live among people whose hashkafa and mode of dress you share, irrespective of how wonderful other Jews may also be. I think his Flatbush/BP comment was excellent, too.
ROB: “No one has an asnwer about the HOlocaust”
Actually, those who choose to ignore Zionist propaganda and also read the Zionists’ own words (e.g. “Palestine cannot be flooded with the old and undesirable” – how Nazi-like, incidentally), and read what their policies (yes, pre-State) were during WW-II, have a partial answer. And those who look to what gedolim said have even more of an answer.
“R. Hutner, on the other hand, was a fierce critic of Zionism. In one well-known lecture, he places causal responsibility for the Holocaust on the Zionist movement. He argues that the Mufti of Jerusalem was not rabidly anti-Semitic until he encountered Zionist aspirations to reclaim the Land of Israel and that the Mufti thereafter played a crucial influential role in convincing the Nazis to adopt the Final Solution.”
There are plenty of others, too, like R’ Gifter who was quoted as saying that Hitler YM”S was a Divine messenger of retribution due to the general acceptance of Zionism.
Google and you shall find – and the above is from an MO site.
The bottom line is that while the answer is not a simple one, the Zionists would be wise to avoid this topic as it exposes (part of) their rishus and makes one question how those reshaim could possibly be miZera Avraham, Yitzchak viYaakov.
As for the OP, sorry to hear about your experience.
I wouldn’t extrapolate this, though, to be reflective of the entire system world-wide.
SecularFrummy – “distorted torah view”…
What do you posit that the BY system’s relative novelty has to do with its relationship to the Torah?
No, it is not a distortion of Torah. Girls need to be taught what a Bas Yisrael is and does, etc. and this is what BYs do.
Lakewood Jew wrote:
“If there was a state during WW2, there would of course have been no immigration quotas in the state, just like every religious, not religious and even anti Zionist Jew is given the right to settle is Israel now with no questions asked-just because they are Jewish.”
Are you so sure about that? You must not have read the various Zionist quotes such as (but not limited to) the following:
You can Google some of the words below, if you’re interested.
Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, later to become the first president of Israel, reporting to the Zionist Congress in 1937 on his testimony before the Peel Commission in London, July 1937. Cited in Yahya, p. 55:
[for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world … Only the branch of the young shall survive.”
I agree with MomOfSix and disagree with squeak and Torah613Torah. Young men, also, should be articulate and have some basic idea of what’s doing in the world even though they are learning. This can be easily done without losing their focus in learning.
How many prominent Roshei Yeshiva do NOT read (or at least glance through) either a Jewish newspaper like Yated/HaModia or, perhaps, the secular NY Times or Wall Street Journal?
Both men and women should know how to manage a checkbook and how to generally navigate society. This is simple derech eretz, which, according to Chazal, is kadma laTorah.
And for the men who are going into rabbanus, it is almost a chilul Hashem if they don’t know how to speak the language properly.
Git:
I would think you are incorrect and that they certainly do.
What does their agenda have to do with Mordechai and Esther and, lihavdil, Haman?
Persian Jews also have a unique bond with Iranians/Persians.
What do you think they do?
Wolfman:
Regardless of what I just wrote above this, good line!
As popa said, don’t play games with insurance. In addition to being honest, the potential material consequences for not doing so are not fun.
I thought I’ve heard that some insurance companies might allow an affidavit that the child does not drive because he’s in school even the school is not > 100 miles away. If you’re not happy with your current insurer’s policies, then inquire about other insurers and perhaps switch to a different insurer.
Oomis, the key there is “and told us to inform them when he returns…” In my understanding, they assume that anyone who has a license will drive at some point regardless of parents’ wishes to the contrary. Therefore, they want the child on the policy too even if you really believe he will not drive.
The savings of not having to have him on the policy can help defray the out-of-town Yeshiva costs, I guess…
JM:
I did not ignore your quotes. And yes, it’s Korach perek Tes Zayin pasuk Chaf Vav, on those words I quoted above, both oy laRasha and kivan sheNitan. I could not find it online for you, though I tried.
Unless you maintain that every single Jewish victim of Sandy is on the level of Amram and others who never ever sinned, there is nothing you have brought that indicate Kivan sheNitan cannot apply to Sandy. On the other hand, there is plenty out there to indicate that kivan sheNitan does apply to Sandy because of kevan sheNitan.
But, again, as I already stated, it doesn’t matter what the reason is but rather that kivan sheNitan is a real (if, obviously, limited) undeniable phenoemenon as Chazal in BK wrote and as expounded by others afterwards (very obviously not including myself as part of Chazal as you mentioned).
So even according to the Emek Davar you quoted, Kivan sheNitan can still apply to Sandy. And even if you also want to say it can only be Jew-to-Jew, which is your own assertion, there were, unfortunately, Jews who helped pass this abominable law. So this (part of the) destruction could have possibly been characterized as Jew-to-Jew, too.
The bottom line is that Chazal gave us a yesod and instead of trying to make it inapplicable because you want to learn mussar from it, perhaps consider that it certainly could be applicable to Toeva and Sandy even with all your quotes.
While correlation does not explicitly denote causation, it certainly can imply causation. In your OP, and afterwards, which is the subject of this thread, you refused to consider the above possibility, and still do.
(I did not *quote* the gemara but rather referred to it and an adam gadol’s interpretation of it, and, in doing so, inadvertently omitted part of it due to having not looked at it inside. Again, I regret that error. But I *quoted* the Lekach Tov for you with exact perek, pasuk and dibur haMaschil. Twice.)
I’m not angry, but I do wish I weren’t wasting my time. What you could have said was that you haven’t seen it but if it is as I am quoting then whatever position you would take…rather than saying you couldn’t find it and simply stonewalling.
So what it comes down to is that you’ve already decided what you hold and nothing anyone tells you will change that.
mdd, the likely original source, like much of “Judeo-Christian” ethics/mores is not Christian even if that particular saying may be so.
JayMatt:
Let’s get some facts out before we continue to get nowhere fast.
1. NY Non-Jews have recently made enormous strides in “normalizing” and legislating mishkav zachar marriage.
2. Sandy hit NY hard.
3. Sandy hit NY Jews hard.
I don’t know why you can’t find it, but there are 2 Lekach Tov pieces of interest here.
The Lekach Tov in Korach on 16:26 says on “Suru na…” Oy laRasha viOy LiShicheino. And on the same passuk in “Pen Tisafu…” he says “why even though they did not sin…miKan sheNitna Rishus LaMashchis liChabeil”.
So you can’t disagree with the application without disagreeing with Chazal. Whether or not anyone else affected had his own aveiros, though the lekach tov does not discuss it, is anyways irrelevant. Whatever the reason for this chazal may be, the bottom line is that once he has permission to go then he can also strike others, CH”V and therefore your OP and further denials to this effect are incorrect and against Chazal. I was hoping you would retract at least that…
CC613, my understanding is that in BMG (Lakewood), at some point they all seem to gain the honorific Rabbi even though they do not (nearly all) neither have semicha nor have even studied Y”D at all.
As to this practice at the unnamed institutions you discuss, I don’t see what’s wrong with learning Yoreh Deah at night and receiving “semicha” if you pass a legit test on Y”D. That doesn’t make you qualified to refer to, say, Rav Dovid Feinstein, by his first name, but that also doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to use that honorific in recognition of your mastery of Y”D.
Unless you propose that “Rabbi” be used only for those in the rabbinate/chinuch, it is already used for every guy at BMG once they reach a certain point. So anyone who passes a legit test on Y”D deserves that honorific, for what it’s worth.
Popa, I believe this is a common sentiment, like it or not.
As I wrote, “yes, I can see it being a deal-breaker for some people, and for [my above] reason…”
Starting a marriage in the most optimal way for them, seems like it should rank pretty high on the list for some people, to the point that they’d rather first consider other potential mates with whom they would be able to start off their marriage as optimally as possible.
JayMatt:
(This is not relevant to your OP, but I did not say that Jews could be CH”V punished, without cause, though the Lekach Tov did seem to indicate this when he seemed to imply that tzaddikim would have been swallowed up in the ground had they not separated from Korach’s midst because of kivan sheNitan.)
Again, you insisted all along that Kivan sheNitan did not apply to Sandy.
But even according to your interpretation, Kivan sheNitan does, indeed, apply to Sandy, unlike your OP which was concerned with other matters and unlike all your following posts, up until this most recent one, in which you refused to consider this fact. I suppose your most recent post is as close to a retraction as can be expected.
You’re welcome, and all the best.
JM:
Although Health addressed all three points already, I just want to address your point #3.
The bottom line is that Chazal told us “Kivan sheNitan…” and, as Health said, it seems most applicable to Sandy. So your OP denying that, and especially your persistent denials of this Chazal, as well-intentioned as you may be in trying to not “limit the mussar”, is offensive and incorrect due to your invalidating a Chazal, CH”V.
As Health said, and this is what bothered me most about your OP, is that you can’t decide to ignore a Chazal just because you want to “learn mussar” from something. The mussar is de facto limited if the destruction was due to other factors, despite your emotional wishes to the contrary.
One can still look to improve themselves, regardless of the particular reason for Sandy. But one can’t deny a ChaZa”L, CH”V, even to not “limit the mussar”.
The source of this chazal seems to be Bava Kamma 60a, which talks about Mitzrayim and Makas Bichoros, and that was non-Jew to Jew.
So now we have mikoros for both Jew to Jew AND Non-Jew to Jew.
Yet you stated rhetorically in your OP “Why should yidden lose so much during hurricanes Sandy and Irene?” and continue to defend that despite “Kivan SheNitan”.
Are you now going to say they were not yet technically Jews in Mitzrayim so they count as non-Jews, instead? “Kivan sheNitan” actually means, according to the gemara, that the tzaddikim are affected first. So this means that non-Jewish Tzaddikim are affected first? Not likely…
Even if that were so, we would still have mikoros for both Jew to Jew AND Non-Jew to Non-Jew.
But, regardless, why would there be any difference?
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that this Chazal is not a plausible source for Sandy’s destruction, unlike your OP.
Popa:
It seems clear that a shana rishona can have a significant part in shaping a marriage.
Given this:
If a person will be learning that first year then, as I wrote earlier, their marriage atmosphere will be different and elevated that year. And because it is the first year of marriage, this elevated level of the first year will significantly shape the rest of the marriage, even after the learning switches to part-time.
I’m not saying that’s the only way it can be done nor even that it is the best, all things considered, for all people.
But it’s (very) good enough [to the point] that, yes, I can see it being a deal-breaker for some people, and for this reason and not for yours, with all due respect.
Torah613:
Of course, any learning has a positive impact on any marriage. But full-time learning is not comparable to part-time learning, and year one of marriage is not comparable to years two and on.
Oomis, I agree with benignuman.
This is the “true Hashgacha Pratis” (what isn’t?) even though it’s the secular date, as this is what the media notices, as he wrote. If it were the “real” or Hebrew date, then only we would notice it. The greater kiddush Hashem, in this case, seems to be the secular date matching up.
Very interesting.
JayMatt:
The Lekach Tov explicitly states they did not sin. I am inclined to believe the Lekach Tov, not your assertion to the contrary (though there may have been SOME in Klal Yisrael who did adopt the position you mentioned, according to other mefarshim).
Again, as I posted a while ago and again on Friday, he says they DID NOT sin. That means there was no aveira. Yet, he says, Kivan sheNitan DID apply.
How can anyone be mevaze meis a tinok sheNishba after seeing what he chose to put on his matzeiva?
Look up the picture and then come back and post.
I read elsewhere that he actually had asked a Rav because he wanted to be buried on Manhattan Island.
Mr. Koch was moved by the murder of Daniel Pearl HY”D and Mr. Pearl’s last words. Again, find the picture first, and then post.
I believe the historical reason for the use of shiktza and sheigetz was not to insult non-Jews (it’s actually a pretty pathetic insult if you’re past pre-school), but rather to reinforce to the Jews that they should not intermarry, etc. with non-Jews.
It’s somewhat like if you’re on a diet and you pass a bakery. To avoid the temptation of breaking your diet, you tell yourself the bakery’s products are poison or something like that. Are they really poison? Obviously not. But if it helps you avoid it, then it’s a tactic.
My point was that, unlike Popa’s position, it’s not that she needs to see him “providing” Torah, but rather that their marriage atmosphere will be different that year if he is learning in kollel during that year, as opposed to if he already did that learning in prior years.
Popa, as you wrote, the practical difference is what you both do that first year of marriage, but I disagree with the reason given in your “terutz”.
Let’s assume that the net years of learning will not end up any different. Regardless, the atmosphere of that first year of marriage is different. When your head is filled with Torah and Kedusha, it is not the same as when it is filled with work and, lihavdil, Torah, even though this is the reality for most men.
So I can understand why a young woman would *prefer* to start off her marriage with that atmosphere of Torah and Kedusha rather than starting off with work and, lihavdil, Torah.
I already did share it.
I quoted the Lekach Tov earlier, and here is the quote from that post:
“If you look at the Lekach Tov, by “Pen Tisafu bichal chatosam” in Korach 16:26, he says explicitly that even those who did not sin had to separate themselves because “Kivan shenitan rishus…””
JayMatt:
This gemara you quoted has nothing to do with any of this.
Again, you’re taking Kivan sheNitan to an illogical extreme and, in doing so, attempting to “prove” that this chazal can’t be true, CH”V. Oy laRasha and kivan sheNitan do not mean that every time anything happens to anyone that others/many others are also necessarily impacted.
However, if an entire city/cities or significant portion thereof is impacted, then at least one of these precepts apply. So, again, Storm Sandy which caused massive destruction would be a very likely candidate for the above rabbinic precepts.
You’re welcome and Baruch Tihye re: your last post. I wish I remember the source for that pshat, and there’s more to that story, too.
As he said, “Ko Somar LiBeis Yaakov viSageid LiBinei Yisrael” and Rashi there as he quoted, is the likely source. But there are schools with at least some of the names you mentioned, too.
JayMatt, it’s nice to debate, but when you make definitive statements then that’s beyond debating in Yeshiva. But I wouldn’t want to tell anyone what to do.
1. There a variety of shitos in the mefarshim about Lot, but, as I wrote, the Torah is pretty clear that it was due to Avraham that Lot was saved and it is at least as clear that Lot was not a Sodomite other than place of residence. Thus, the fact that he required intervention to be saved is a clear indication that, very simply speaking, one shouldn’t be in the wrong place at the wrong time, as discussed above.
2. I don’t agree with your implications here. It happens that some of his descendants were forbidden to join, but that was only because of what they did (“al divar asher lo kidmu eschem…”).
But another of his descendants is the most famous convert in Jewish History and the matriarch of Dovid HaMelech and ultimately Melech HaMashiach, may Hashem send him soon to redeem us all BB”A.
In fact, I’ve heard that the reason Lot’s daughter named her son Moav is liSheim Shamayim: so that nobody should claim instead that her son was born in a “virgin birth” and therefore be michalel shem shamayim, etc. as happened with a different child some centuries later when some people made this exact claim (which was actually a common pagan belief) about a certain boy in Natzeres.
benignuman, that was the point of a bunch of posts above: this is not just “goyim’s ruchnius” but everyone’s gashmius.
As Health (and others?) noted, their policies affect everyone, and it’s also not a good thing for us if the society in which we live is so immoral that it’s already crossed beyond the point of one of the few zechuyos the umos have, of not writing a kesuba bein ish liIsh.
JayMatt, this is getting a little tedious.
It seems we are agreeing that there are times when protesting is the correct approach.
As for Lot:
Lot would have been destroyed in sedom even though he was not a rasha like his neighbors. Kivan sheNitan and Oy laRasha seem to both apply: Lot did not have his own zechuyos and would not have been saved. This is one reason he was not allowed to look back at those who were being destroyed. However, the Torah states that Hashem “remembered Avraham” and therefore saved Lot. But that was exceptional and if not for that then he would have been destroyed along with the evil people of sedom even though he was very much not like them.
Back to your original post, I think the end of it was a nice thought: that we all have what to work on and should heed that message Hashem sent with Sandy.
But the rest of your post, where you imply that this is the extent of the message, is ignoring Chazal and modern Rabbanim, and this is wrong. There is a time to protest (and “Gay marriage” might have been one of those times) and Hashem does care about the world and acts as He does, as rebdoniel wrote soon after your OP.
JayMatt,
1. “Kivan sheNitan reshus…” is not universally applicable but is a definite precept from Chazal, despite the many, many, instances where Hashem did, does and will differentiate.
2. We see from Chazal that protesting is sometimes called for. There are other cases, by goyim, too, such as Moshe Rabbeinu when Yisro’s daughters said Ish Mitzri, etc.
I can’t tell you one can directly extrapolate from Korach to this. But the concept is definitely there, and if gedolim say to protest it then this Chazal seems to be at least a “deyka” or indicator that this is, in fact, correct.
3. Lot would have been destroyed in Sedom, too, were it not for Avraham Avinu. The shachain part may refer to Jews (or may refer to non-Jews, too). But it’s not only a Jewish-Jewish relationship.
Unlike Yosef HaTzaddik who said “Ani Yosef, haOd Avi Chai?”, I am not Joseph nor any other poster by any other name.
JayMatt:
I’m not sure what proofs you refer to, but I do think the kitrug was irrelevant to the post. I didn’t mean to say these situations (pesel Micha, seudas Achashveirosh, et al.) are off-limits to discussion when on topic, but I don’t see the point of arbitrarily bringing in “halalu … vaHalalu”.
Regarding Oy laRasha, are you saying that it only applies to Jews and not at all if non-Jews are involved? Why?
As for a source, I mentioned earlier that Oy laRasha is mentioned in parshas Korach. Rashi in the beginning of the parsha quotes it from the Midrash Tanchuma.
Health posted about “Kivan sheNitan rishus…” If you look at the Lekach Tov, by “Pen Tisafu bichal chatosam” in Korach 16:26, he says explicitly that even those who did not sin had to separate themselves because “Kivan shenitan rishus…”
Besides for this, however, if you look at the Midrash HaGadol later on, under “Hibadlu mitoch haEida haZos”, you’ll find something that might be relevant here: he writes that had not Moshe davened for them, they, too, would have been swallowed up like Korach because they listened to Korach’s blasphemy and did not protest. So there is what to be said for protesting, though contemporary gedolim have anyways ruled like this, in certain cases, as mentioned.
Rav Moshe did not listen to Yanni, though. Yanni is “New Age”, not Classical. Although both are (mostly) instrumental, there is a big difference between the two.
This has been discussed before in a thread about non-Jewish music, IIRC, but music is an expression of the singer’s neshama and it goes straight to the listener’s neshama. From what I’ve heard, and with all due respect to this artist, a frum Jew should not have any soul-to-soul connection with Yanni’s soul.
I do understand that Mozart, Bach, et al. were not tzadikei yesodei olam either, but if classical is good enough for Rav Moshe then I can certainly understand that. But not to extrapolate that to therefore cover any instrumental music. No.
Given the terrible general yeridas hadoros among the umos, particularly in the past 60 years or so, it is especially unwise to listen to non-Jewish music made during this time, and only worse so the more recent it is.
JayMatt, I don’t understand why, CH”V, you refuse to believe in that Chazal (ironic, since you just quoted from the maaseh of Vayaaminu BaHashem uViMoshe avdo”.
Health correctly referred to the Chazal that there are times, that once Hashem had allowed the mashchis to go forth, that his destruction was, to some extent, indiscriminate. (I also mentioned earlier regarding oy laRasha which Chazal also have much to talk about. Do you not believe in that Chazal as well, CH”V?)
Hence, when massive double-digit foot waves washed over NYC, it makes sense that, for instance, Seagate was also affected simply because of their topography (and perhaps because of their proximity to this immorality?), given that Hashem had sent out this destructive force “Sandy”.
I’m not claiming Sandy was or was not one of those cases of “kivan sheNitan Rishus….”. Nor can I claim this was a case of Oy LaRasha either. Who knows? But the possibility for each is certainly there, and the other 10 instances you quoted do not negate this.
As for the Yam Suf, Pesel Micha did make it through, but we had other zechuyos that compensated for “Halalu Ovdei Avoda Zara VaHalalu Ovdei Avoda Zara”. Do you also enjoy trying to bring a kitrug on what are presumably your people? Of course Hashem differentiated and saved us.
But, again, the differentiation at Krias Yam Suf doesn’t negate the concept of Kivan sheNitan Rishus…”. Hashem is always kind to us, but that doesn’t mean you can negate Chazal. Obviously, there are certain times/people/whatever when/where that Chzal applies and other times/people/whatever when/where it doesn’t.
benignuman:
Who said it “didn’t work out” and even if that is so because they didn’t get to speak to the President, who says it didn’t accomplish anything, regardless? These were great Torah giants who participated in this. Are you sure wish to ridicule them so flippantly?
JayMatt:
1. I never said we should educate them about their zechusim. But even for our own sake, we don’t want our host country to be sedom. Lot needed tremendous divine intervention and it was still bad news for Lot even though he was rescued. It is certainly in our own interest that our host country should be a country with proper morals, including not sanctifying that which the Torah calls an abomination.
2. While the cases of Toeiva and WW II are indeed not comparable, there are still certain cases when a larger protest is called for. I’m not saying this toeiva issue is or is not such a case. But there is such a precedent for certain cases, and nobody ever proclaimed that such measures were limited only to the Holocaust.
3. Again, my point does remain that despite there being two other zechuyos as you pointed out from that gemara, it is still very extremely foolish of the gentiles to do what they did by legislating “writing a kesuba between one man and another”.
As for your other points about “Partial-Birth Abortion”, “pulling the plug”, etc., note that murder is not a toeiva as is mishkav zachar nor is it a particular zechus the nations have as is not writing a kesuba bein ish LiIsh. Regardless, I am not taking any position as to whether or not I believe there should have been protests then. But I do know that the Torah calls this toeiva and that there are also Chazal’s further comments in the gemara as per the above.
benignuman, there are exceptions, such as during WW II, when Rabbanim did march to Washington. For something as terrible as mishkav zachar, I’m not so sure the quiet approach is the correct one. Either way, there are Jewish politicians, as Health noted, and other ways to properly and appropriately express our absolute disagreement.
JayMatt, Regarding, my point 1, I apologize for omitting the other two. But the point still remains. Rashi even writes that despite such behavior, they still respect the mitzva to the extent that they don’t write a kesuba. Whereas today, they’re essentially claiming there is no such mitzva. This is obviously not a smart idea.
As to my points 2 and 3, they are not paradoxical at all. Oy LaRasha has implications for others, as I wrote. There is plenty to look up in Parshas Korach and elsewhere on this matter. But outside whatever that association is, the gentiles are responsible for their own behavior; there is no arvus to them as there is between Jews.
“Imagine, if 3 thousand boys went in, perhaps 3 thousand girls would not have to go in.”
Imagine how many of those boys would, CH”V, experience tremendous nisyonos and yeridos in their avodas Hashem.
And all for no reason other than that the Zionists want to shmad them just as they’ve always done.
miritchka, it’s not that simple.
1. We were not punished for what the gentiles did. But I’m not sure (I don’t know) we “did everything we could” either.
2. The gemara clearly states that the only zechus the Gentiles have is that they don’t write a kesuba bein ish liIsh. Absent that…?
3. There is a concept of Oy LaRasha Oy Lishcheino, which means that if an innocent person associates with a wicked one then the innocent person may end up caught up, CH”V, in the punishment of that wicked person.
147, it’s not exactly the mark of a chacham to base one’s world-view of right-and-wrong on what “Satmar” does.
Perhaps learning the inyan is a better idea.
DaasYochid, no, I could not come up with a better analogy. Regardless of how commendable some of the people who serve in the IDF are, they are part of an organization that is anti-Torah which is, in turn, a part of a State that is anti-Torah. So I thought my analogy was actually pretty charitable.
Regardless, as you mentioned at the end of your post, it doesn’t matter what you might think your reason is for wearing a sweatshirt or anything else.
If the garment carries with it a popular connotation then by wearing that garment you will convey that connotation even if you’re doing so because it’s “stylish” or comfortable or you like the color or for any other reason.
Wearing an IDF sweatshirt necessarily implies endorsement of the IDF and, also by extension, the State of Israel. This is, therefore, inappropriate, on many levels, as mentioned earlier.